Fun fact: from microscopes๐ฌ to qubits โ๏ธ - two different ways to enjoying experiments ! I really enjoy the chats with my fellow scientists at work, and this week we shared the fun (and sometimes frustration) of experimental headaches. Starting my career in biotechnologies and medicine, I felt like a mechanic working without a blueprint when exploring the human body. When experiments didnโt go as planned, we might have been on the brink of discovering a new mechanism. Now, I'm immersed in the world of quantum computing, where the foundational theories have been firmly established since the 1960s. Itโs fascinating to see the different mindsets: In biology, discrepancies might hint at groundbreaking discoveries, but in quantum computing, they usually mean there is an error in the experiment and it's back to the drawing board. I'm not sure which scenario I prefer: wandering in the dark or having the ability to pinpoint my mistakes. ๐คฃ #Science #QuantumComputing #BiomedicalEngineering #Research #Innovation #ExperimentsAreFun ๐๐๐ก๐: ๐โ๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ก ๐๐ ๐๐ โ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐๐พ๐ถ๐ท, ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ผ โ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐ 15 ๐ฆ๐๐๐๐ . ๐ด๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐๐๐ , ๐๐ก ๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ข๐โ! https://xkcd.com/
I might politely challenge this notion. There are certain parts of QC where we are really working to "engineer" useful systems - there the physics is long established and indeed when something goes wrong it's almost always experimental error. We understand spin-1/2 dynamics through a century of experiments, so when something doesn't match we need to figure out why. Nonetheless in the process of delivering that outcome we often rely on interpretation of new measurements trying to elucidate limiting phenomena or simply explain confusing observations. Especially in areas like condensed-matter approaches to QC (superconducting and solid-state semiconductor devices), theory frequently trails and is used to explain new observations.
Great point! Diffusion is a good case study to highlight your justified dilemma. There is a โmagicโ (dimension) number where one would work better than the other. However, thereโs also a crossoverโฆ depending on the number of choices you make in each step. Captured nicely by Shizuo Kakutani: "A drunk man will find his way home, but a drunk bird may get lost forever" Great work by George Pรณlya.
FOptica, FSPIE, CMatP, MAICD, FGIA
1moBiology and medicine have always relied on physics (& chemistry) and the tension between theory and experiment to discover new things (where the biomedical space seems to deal to date primarily with emergent phenomena) - think of epri imaging of unpaired electrons, a quantum process first observed during WW2 (perhaps raising questions about effective motivation) which now drives many new insights in medicine and elsewhere. That related processes might also be involved in the algorithmic signal processing within the brain is tantalising if still speculative at this point in time.